The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Jekyll and Hyde: the poor man’s Anti-Discrimination Bill > Comments

Jekyll and Hyde: the poor man’s Anti-Discrimination Bill : Comments

By Moira Clarke, published 2/1/2013

While the draft legislation deals religious bodies a magnanimous hand, religious individuals are less fortunate.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
"With over 22 per cent of the population reporting as having 'no religion' in the 2011 Census, wording that explicitly protects all Australians would have been far more appropriate."

The No Religion proportion is likely to be more than the 22% that ticked 'No Religion' in the census: the 'Not Defined' proportion was about 9% and only a small proportion of those were attempted 'definitions' (that did not fit the pre-determined definitions).

Note in the appropriate section here - titled Religious Affiliation - http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2071.0main+features902012-2013 - the proportion of 'Non-Christians is 7.2% and there is also a category of 'Other non-Christians' of 0.8%.

I'm pretty sure that 7.2% Non-Christian came out of the ~9% 'Not-Defined', and is really more 'not-religious',

... so the total of No-Religion in Australia is really closer to 30%.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 8:02:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction - the proportion of 'Religion-affiliation-Not-Stated' nationwide in the 2011 Australian Census was 8.55% -

go to here - http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/0?opendocument&navpos=230 and download the 'Expanded Community Profile' excel spreadsheets and look at sheet X08c - X08 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION BY AGE BY SEX (3 of 3)

'Religious affiliation not stated' (at the bottom) total was 1,839,648 ie. 8.553%

Moreover, there is a link on the top right-hand corner to this: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2901.0Chapter8302011

Note the Non-Christian code/category does not appear on that web-page about religious affiliation, nor does it appear on the excel spreadsheet.

How can the ABS provide such discrepancies??
.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 8:36:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's not even a question of religion:

Any individual or truly-private body should be able to discriminate to their heart's content, employ whoever they like and reject whoever they like, on whatever grounds and for whatever reason, good or bad, but the moment they receive a single cent from public coffers, or any other form of public support, that freedom ends. Period.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 10:12:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As Yuyutsu rightly points out, there must be freedom for a purely private body not receiving a cent of public money directly or in kind to discriminate in any way it wishes. I would extend the exclusion to a body, even if not receiving money, which has a part in the exercise of state authority or the disposal of state finances. "State" includes municipal, and "state authority" includes application of or exemption from truancy laws.

It would be an improvement if freedom of and (especially) from religion were positively spelled out to include freedom for blasphemy, apostasy, proselytisation, unbelief and impiety (provided individual rights including privacy are not impinged). Expressed and honoured commitment to that should be a condition for acquiring Australian residency, with breaches including calls for protecting a "prophet" from insult being a qualification for a single ticket on the next plane out.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 10:41:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The proposed legislation has major failings, especially in the protection of free speech. Do the drafters look back on good old days when raising topics like the vote for women was offensive? And today, some find the notion of gay marriage offensive. Is that subject to be banned?
The bill seems to be more about the entrenchment of discrimination than limiting it. It’s one thing for a church/mosque to have its own internal discriminatory rules, e.g. against women, but this legislation is about endorsing hospitals’ withholding of treatment, e.g. from pregnant women—while being paid by public taxation.
Posted by Asclepius, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 10:55:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Postsers you all forget this bill was written by lawyers for lawyers. With all the grads coming out of law school there are only so many seat in parliament for them. So some of them are going to have to practice law, what better way than to set up the country up to have endless decimation cases bottling up the court systems. This will provide profitable work or many a year, and the small tweaks they can make along the way will see any new graduate of law through to their retirement.
There is supposed to be separation of the courts and the parliament nothing could be further from the truth these days.

They still put the act on but it’s lawyer’s all the way down.
Posted by cornonacob, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 10:59:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy